Love and the Trinity
Check out The Fuerst Shall Be Last. This guy has some fantastic insights on Trinitarian theology.
It’s an excellent starting point for some discussion. And, I think, a cogent argument for the supremacy of Love over sovereignty as God’s defining attribute.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
the supremacy of Love over sovereignty as God’s defining attribute.
I don't like this type of language, the more I think about it. I don't think God's sovereignty is what defines God, but rather helps define him. I don't think that love is what defines God, it helps define him. These are only pieces of the being we know as God. What the post had to say was interesting and I want to consider it further. But I want to quote a Calvinist who did not think in terms of "defining attribute" but rather viewed God as desiring to show all of his attribute equally, as he desires to make himself known to his creation and that his creation's purpose is to know that Creator in all that He is,
“It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all; for then the effulgence would not answer the reality. For the same reason it is not proper that one should be manifested exceedingly, and another but very little. It is highly proper that the effulgent glory of God should answer his real excellency; that the splendour should be answerable to the real and essential glory, for the same reason that it is proper and excellent for God to glorify himself at all” (Jonathan Edwards Works Vol. II; Concerning Divine Decrees).
I’m with Hank on this one. From a human perspective, love should be our driving force. Our greatest ethic like St. Paul rightly said. We are to be loving to our neighbors, reaching out to others, and being servants to one another and our communities.
From God’s perspective, we really don’t know him fully to determine his greatest attribute. Edwards makes a good point.
Edgar
Whereas I am very, very tempted to agree with both Hank and Edgar, being a Presbyterian, I must say that ‘practically’ (and JR is going to kiss me for using this), what does that mean? We cannot possibly experience God, in fullness, at all times. We cannot therefore expect to see all of his glory, at all times, in all ways. So, on the ground (as it were), the nature of God is divided into what we can, at any one time, absorb, as we can experience it. That does not divide the nature of God in truth, just in experience.
Given that this is the case, should this not be the nature of God–that we experience His Love foremost? I should think so. Given that it is the defining factor of a disciple of Christ, that by which the world will recognize us. I should also think that this is the case, as grace flows not from holiness but in opposition to it, via love.
And, Tom and JR, I wanted to bring this up:
If Love is the main factor how to do we work out unconditional love, and the conditions of relationship with God. I have my own theories, abut I’m tempted to let you brow beat me first, rather than blather.
And, thanks for letting me know about this. It’s my new land of plenty, given that I”ve been isolated on the mission field in Seneglal for the last to years.
Pax
…if God has told us that his defining attribute is love (the incarnation and 1 John), then shouldn't we take God at God's word? …
Whether we like the terminology or not, an emphasis on one or more of the attributes of God is the basis and foundation from which we all build our theology.
The Calvinism view begins with God’s sovereignty as its emphasis.
The Arminian/OT view begins with God’s love as its emphasis.
And, as I said in the post, there are good and practical reasons for beginning with love.
…if God has told us that his defining attribute is love (the incarnation and 1 John), then shouldn't we take God at God's word? …
I think that this view of the incarnation is incomplete (even though I know that you don't necessarily disagree with what I am about to say but I think it needs to be said anyway). The incarnation demonstrates more than just God's love. It also demonstrates God's holiness in examples like Jesus in the Temple. It demonstrates his power in the virgin birth and all of the miracles. It demonstrates his wrath. It demonstrates the fullness of God, not just one attribute.
Secondly, I could point to many passages in the Scriptures where God's holiness is set apart as God's defining attribute. I do take God at his word and agree with you that God is love, but love isn't the only thing that defines God. How many times in Leviticus did God command holiness out of Israel because God is holy? How many times did God command righteousness out of Israel because he is righteous. How man times did God command love out of his people because he is loving? He commands us to be like him in all that he is, not just one part.
Having just read 1 Peter 1, it is very interesting that this apostle, who was with Jesus as much as John, grounded our love for others in our quest for holiness. Read 1 Peter 1:13-22. We become holy and pure and out of that purity, we love. We attain that purity out of a fear of a holy God. Our love for God and the brethren is found in our fear of God and our earnestness to be holy like he is.
I am very hesitant to say that God has one defining attribute when Jesus did not demonstrate only one attribute. It runs the risk of making that attribute more valuable and of higher worth than Yahweh/Jesus and thus that attribute becomes our god, rather than Immanuel himself. I want to worship all of God and therefore I agree with Edwards that we need to see all of God, not just one facet of him. I seek a balanced view that embraces all of God so that in my seeking his love I do not let his holiness become blurry and distorted, and conversely I do not let God's love get distorted as I seek his holiness in my life.
Tom 1st,
As a former pastor, there are good practical reasons to start with God's sovereignty as much as God's love. Families who were sustained by God's sovereignty and holiness after their daughter was molested by an uncle. A woman who was born with a condition that can be fixed but was botched and who also had miscarriages can smile and have joy because of God's sovereignty. Love isn't the defining attribute because it is practical. Every attribute of God is practical. Thus I still argue for a balanced view of God, as Edwards advocates in the quote in my comment above. We must make all of God known. As Peter said, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues27 of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9 NET).
Hank,
Thanks for your comments. I’m glad to hear a little about your ministry and how it is informed and benefiting from Christian doctrine.
I do not disagree that the sovereignty of God has a very important and practical place withing the pastoral ministry. And I do not deny that teaching the sovereignty of God is extremely important to the church of God - as it is one of God’s attributes. So, I do not down play the importance of God’s sovereignty.
Rather, I’m arguing that the position given to sovereignty by the Reformed/Classical view is actually out of balance. So, I agree, balance is needed, but the Classical Theist position, in my opinion, emphasizes sovereingty too much. And because it starts with classic Greek thoughts about the immutibility of God, then adds an unbalanced view of sovereingty, it is difficult from there to speak of God as a truly relational being. Rather than looking like a loving father, God looks like a distant king (which has it’s place) who is so far removed from humanity that he cannot suffer or suffer with his people.
So, yes, I affirm the sovereingy of God. And I appreciate and am glad this doctrine has proven quite helpful in your ministry - praise the Lord!
In the end, I think we need to begin a discussion on the philosophies informing our biblical interpretation - Compatibilism vs. Libertarianism. I think this may prove much more helpful than simply arguing over texts, theologians, etc.
The truth of this exegesis should be not only ridiculously apparent, it should be in the foremost of our thinking, day in and day out, without question. It should, as the writer points out, be the defining characteristic of who we are and how we interact. I don’t think that this is the only reason that we are taught the Trinity Nature of God in the Scriptures, but I do think that this is without question one of the main reasons the Bible teaches it. I don’t think there is a model of community, outreach, evangelism, teaching, etc., etc. which should not be grounded firmly in this truth: God is love, by nature and loving by choice.